DivX 8.5.3 with Xmpeg 5.0.3

Our DivX test is the same DivX / XMpeg 5.03 test we've run for the past few years now, the 1080p source file is encoded using the unconstrained DivX profile, quality/performance is set balanced at 5 and enhanced multithreading is enabled:

DivX 6.8.5 w/ Xmpeg 5.0.3 - MPEG-2 to DivX Transcode

And we're done. DivX, historically a stronghold for AMD's Phenom II processors (at least compared to their price-competitive Penryn counterparts) is faster on the Core i5 750 than on the Phenom II X4 965 BE. What's wrong with that?

The i5 750 costs $199, the 965 BE costs $245. Intel is selling you more transistors for less than AMD is for once.

x264 HD Video Encoding Performance

Graysky's x264 HD test uses the publicly available x264 codec (open source alternative to H.264) to encode a 4Mbps 720p MPEG-2 source. The focus here is on quality rather than speed, thus the benchmark uses a 2-pass encode and reports the average frame rate in each pass.

x264 HD Encode Benchmark - 720p MPEG-2 to x264 Transcode

In the first pass AMD is quite competitive, outpacing the i5 750, but when we get to the actual encode:

x264 HD Encode Benchmark - 720p MPEG-2 to x264 Transcode

It's close, but the cheaper i5 750 is faster than the Phenom II X4 965 BE once again; Hyper Threading keeps the i7 920 ahead.

 

Windows Media Encoder 9 x64 Advanced Profile

In order to be codec agnostic we've got a Windows Media Encoder benchmark looking at the same sort of thing we've been doing in the DivX and x264 tests, but using WME instead.

Windows Media Encoder 9 x64 - Advanced Profile Transcode

AMD is about 6% faster than the i5 750 here, it looks like the Phenom II does have some hope left for it. Let's see how the rest unfolds...

Adobe Photoshop CS4 Performance 3D Rendering Performance
Comments Locked

343 Comments

View All Comments

  • Genx87 - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link

    But after looking at the gaming benchmarks. I am wondering if the i5 is worth the cost to upgrade from an E8400? The best I could come up with from the graphs was the Q9560@3Gz or the E8600. In most of the games they were within a few % points. Ill have to see how the i5 does with the new round of cards from AMD\Nvidia before making a decision if I am going to build a new machine or just upgrade the GPU this winter.
  • Kaleid - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link

    Do like I do. Buy a better GPU. I'll stick to my e8400 at least until the 32nm CPU's arrive.

    And according to the guru3d review overclocking makes dramatically increases power consumption during load:
    "Once we overclock to 4.1 GHz... the power consumption all of a sudden is 295 Watts (!), so an additional 1200 MHz of power is costing us an additional 133 Watts."
    http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-750-core-i7-...">http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-7...re-i7-86...
  • papapapapapapapababy - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link

    "the lowest Lynnfield is a faster gaming CPU than Intel's fastest dual-core: the E8600"

    bullshit. the E8600 has higher minimum frame rates umm know "when it matters the most"


    http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/intel/lynn...">http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/intel/lynn...
  • scooterlibby - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link

    Nice review. Lynnfield seems like a great deal too for people building a new system, but from a gaming standpoint, I don't see enough performance difference to upgrade my overclocked e8400 setup. Guess it'll be Sandybridge for me!
  • rbbot - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link

    What is the maximum memmory you can fit onto a P55 chipset? I notice the Gigabtye board has 6 dimms but their website still says Max 16Gb?

    Is there a 16Gb chipset limit? Would it increase once those new high-capacity dimms from samsung make an appearance?
  • the machinist - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link

    I really don't know what to make of all this. I am about to buy i7 920 and over clock it to 3.6GHZ and then sometime next year upgrade the CPU to i9 6 core on LGA 1366. SLI does not interest me... cores/threads and clock speed are my main concern for 3d rendering.

    Is there any reason for someone like me to get this new platform instead? Please advice me.
  • rsher - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link

    I wish I had an answer for you. I am in the same situation. If you do get a good reply please post it so I could figure out what to buy..BTW what is the i9 CPU?
    I have some time before I need to upgrade. HAve you considered using the Xenon processors... I use MAX 2010..
    rSher

    .

  • the machinist - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link

    rSher Xeon are overkill these days considering the price premium. Single socket CPUs are so powerful these days that I just don't see the bang for the buck when it comes to Xeons. i7 920 over clocked matches some of the mid level Xeons anyway. If I was minting it and rendering only then I would get pair of high end Xeons

    Regarding your other question....
    i9 will be 6 core version that will come out next year and you can use them on LGA1366 Mobos. I think a 8 core version will come out too. They will be expensive but by the time I decide to upgrade they should be less expensive.
  • PassingBy - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link

    Can get single socket Xeon machines as well. The reason that professional users often prefer them is for ECC support. Up to you whether that matters for your applications. Naturally, for servers, ECC is the norm and that is also the situation for most professional workstations. Xeons can overclock as well, perhaps sometimes even better than the desktop equivalents, but professional users rarely overclock.
  • Ann3x - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link

    In some respects a great article. However the assertation that anything below the top end 1336 cpus are pointless is pretty obsurd.

    As others have stated the headroom and potential overclock of ANY d0 920 easily beats these new processors.

    As it is, i7s are aimed at enthusiasts. FOR AN ENTHUSIAST *ie someone willing to tweak and OC* the 920 is still by fast the best bang for buck choice.

    The new platform is only better if no tweeking is carried out (ie if youre not a technical user).

    Therefore were left with a column aimed at technical users saying something that is only relevant to non technical users. At best its a gross simplification. As worst its missleading.

    Yes, the new platform is good for the mass market, yes its exciting. However keep some perspective with your audience, the i7 920 is still BY FAR the best performance value for money CPU if you have the knowledge required to get the most out of it (as the majority of people buying X58 do).

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now